Fanboys Anonymous

Many people find it difficult to name their favorite movie of the past year, let alone their favorite movie of all time. But I'm a man who loves his lists, and I decided to take things a step further.

What are my top 10 favorite movies of every year since the year I was born?

That was the initial premise of this, which then turned into also including a top "whatever I feel like doing" for an overall breakdown of each decade, as well.

Needless to say, I had a difficult task ahead of me—but one that I knew I could come back to time and time again once I did all the legwork, especially now that I also track my rankings as best as I can through Letterboxd instead of just Evernote. Go ahead and follow me there!

So that is what we're doing here. From 1987 onward, this post will have a top 10 list of my favorite movies with some extra detail, along with some other years just for fun, and a top #x per decade. At any point, if I watch a movie I feel deserves to be ranked on here, I'll go back into this post and edit it. Therefore, you never know if one day, I watch something from the mid-90s and put it high up on my list!

But before we get started, I want to lay out some notes and information for people to be aware of:

NOTE 1 - FAVORITE, NOT BEST 

This is a list of my FAVORITE movies—not the BEST movies, necessarily. While there will certainly be some overlap in movies I think are legitimately amazing, well-made, Oscar-worthy production, it doesn't mean that these are the 10 movies per year that I think are the absolute finest films on a universal scale. You're going to see silly action movies, ridiculous comedies and flicks that I know are bad, but I can't help but enjoy. You're also not going to see some critically acclaimed films that I would agree are among the best for that particular year. But just because it is a good movie doesn't mean it is something I've ever felt like revisiting a single time, let alone multiple times.

NOTE 2 - THE HONORARY MENTIONS

Some years are just packed with too many that I love to fit into a top 10. To help illustrate better how the decades lists are formed, I'll mention a handful of those movies by extending the top 10 to further numbers so I can mention those films.

Yes, it sounds like a cop out. But the movies are still ranked in order, so you can still see what the true top 10 are.

Other times, there aren't even 10 that I really like that I can put on the list, so you'll see some filler candidates, as I couldn't think of anything else.

NOTE 3 - THE KEY TO RANKING

There are effectively four levels of ranking here:

• Movies in bold are movies I absolutely love.
• Movies in italics but not bold are the ones I like a lot, but aren't in the same league.
• Movies in gray are ones that I like, but I might have seen them once and don't quite feel like watching them a second film or anything of that sort.
• Striked out movies on the list means I only have it there to fill out the list and will gladly bump it off the moment I find something to replace it, ranging from "it's not worthy of being on this list, but I still like it" to "I don't even actually like this."
  

The true way to judge my favorites will be the decade lists. That is where you see how these outliers actually place on whether I love them, like them, think they're okay, or think they're just not the worst.

NOTE 4 - FLEXIBILITY

At any moment, these lists can change. Not only will I obviously be watching more films as time goes on, but my tastes will change, too. If I had made this up when I was 10 years old, or 20 years old, certain movies would definitely rank higher and lower than they are at 35 (and beyond).

If you don't see a movie on this list, there could be two reasons why. The first is that I saw it and I'm not a big fan of it. The second would be that I just haven't seen it yet. There are plenty blind spot films that I need to watch. Hopefully, I'll get around to them. Some will even be called out specifically on this list because I know they're important or interesting enough to justify mentioning.

This page originally housed every year's list, but it became too big. To compensate, the decades have been broken down into individual posts.

Here is your table of contents for this series:

FAVORITE MOVIES LISTS - BY DECADE
1960s, 1970s, 1980s | 1990s | 2000s | 2010s | 2020s — MASTER LIST PAGE

Over time, this particular master list page may be adjusted to include any more information I decide to add. It may even become a place to house an ultimate all-time top 100 favorite movies ever list, or something else along those lines.

What are your favorite movies from every year?
Drop your thoughts in the comments below!

Batman is a franchise that has been around for nearly 100 years. It is almost impossible to watch all the films and every episode of the television series, as well as read all the comics at this point.

But what if someone were to condense all that—combine as many big and little details as possible and form the most cohesive outline of the Bruce Wayne character ever created—all in just 100 stories?

That is the goal of THE BATMAN BLUEPRINT—one of many parts of THE BLUEPRINT PROJECT created by Anthony Mango.

The official name of this Batman series is THE BATMAN: A KNIGHT-TIME STORY which will consist of 10 volumes of story arcs that tell the most comprehensive version of Batman by mixing elements from everything that has come before.

Big stories like A Death in the Family and The Long Halloween are adapted with original stories and new twists. The entire Bat Family is represented, as well as every villain and supporting character imaginable, whether they're crucial to the overall series like Alfred Pennyworth or extremely minor like Nick and Eddie from the beginning of Tim Burton's Batman 89.

This concept is huge, so here is a pitch video to explain what this is all about:

The Batman Blueprint and all these superhero stories from The Blueprint Project are outlines in progress with the intent to become full-fledged works with the backing of DC Comics and the other production companies associated with these intellectual properties.

At the moment, they are not in any direct association with those entities. But with your support, these pitches could become a reality. So help spread the word by sharing this with the hashtags #BatmanBlueprint and #HireMangoDCComics, tag @DCComics and @Batman as well as other artists, creators, friends, family and more.

Stay tuned for more information and the initial breakdowns of the first few chapters of THE BATMAN: A KNIGHT-TIME STORY.

In the ever-dwindling days of movie theaters struggling to get people to sit down in an auditorium to watch a film, the industry continues to try every single thing imaginable except the one thing that everybody complains is the sole problem for why they aren't going to the movies.

Yes, if you polled 100 people, there will be some saying that they'd rather watch a film from the convenience of their own home because it is more comfortable. They can go to the bathroom whenever they want and pause the flick. They can make whatever food they want to eat. If they want to be loud, they can be loud. There's less of a chance they get sick from COVID or they don't find the seats comfortable or any number of other things.

But the one thing everyone can agree on, and the number one absolute biggest reason why people aren't going to the movies is THE PRICE.

It costs way too much money to go to the movies anymore—especially if you want to get some popcorn, you have a date or you're a family.

It sounds like I'm being an old coot by saying "I remember when in high school, I could go to the movies for $5 at night." I could get a large popcorn and a drink, too, and not have spent $15.

These days, I can't get a SINGLE movie ticket alone for that price. If I'm paying for my wife and we get a bucket of popcorn, two drinks and a box of candy, I have to treat it like I'm paying my electric bill for the month.

That's absurd, and movie theater chains know it, and the industry knows it, but everyone is so goddamn hopped up on perpetual growth with company stock based purely on arbitrary numbers in a constantly inflating economy that doesn't ever want to compensate wages to counteract the diminished value of the dollar, that they are stuck in a cycle thinking "Is there ANYTHING we can do other than lower ticket prices?"

No. Nothing else you do will work. And this AMC Sightline nonsense is the latest example of how you're not going to save yourselves.

All you're going to do is nickel and dime your most loyal patrons—who you're already barely staying afloat from, just by bleeding them dry—until they slowly become no longer viable. They run out of money. They run out of patience. They die off. And you're left filing for bankruptcy because you would rather die a slightly slower death in 5-10 years than to make a slightly lower profit and continue to exist well beyond then.

Rant somewhat over. Let's dive into how stupid Sightline is.

For those who don't know, AMC's latest strategy is to charge different ticket costs based on the position of the seats in the auditorium, with this model in mind:

• Value Sightline = The shit no one wants to buy, like the front row.
• Standard Sightline = Everything not in the other two tiers.
• Preferred Sightline = The good seats in the middle of the auditorium that everyone wants.
  

They're trying to justify this by using typical company-jargon stock market buzz word rhetoric, like every business does these days, by doing the normal rundown of:

1. Flat out lying and hyping themselves up as a company you love, and you shouldn't criticize what you love = "While every seat at AMC delivers an amazing moviegoing experience..."
2. Trying to convince you this is for your benefit = "...we know there are some moviegoers who prioritize their specific seat and others who prioritize value moviegoing. Sightline at AMC accommodates both sentiments to help ensure that our guests have more control over their experience, so that every trip to an AMC is a great one."

So here's the thing. You claim you're doing this so people have more control, right?

Were we able to pick those seats before? Yes. Are we given any more control than before, or are we still just given the option of picking the same seats? NOTHING has upgraded.

Oh, but you're giving more control over whether we prioritize ENJOYMENT or COST, right? So that must mean that you're keeping the preferred tickets the same price as what we have now, but you're rewarding people who can't come to the movies as often because they can't afford it, by lowering the price of Standard and Value...right?

I can't seem to find ANYTHING that indicates that will be the case. It's all wrapped up in "beat around the bush" language, saying that Value will cost less. Yes...but does that mean less than NOW, or that you're just upping the price of the other things?

You're still not going to get people at the movies, particularly when you're now telling them that their dollars are worth less to you because they're going to be FORCED to sit in the AWFUL seats!

AMC wants to equate itself to being similar to the ticketing procedure that you'd see for things like concerts, sports venues and so on. That's something I agree with to an extent. It is very similar, and there is an inherent value to sitting in the best seats (generally speaking; we all have preferences).

But here are the flaws with that mentality:

1. Nobody is going to treat going to the movies as the equivalent of a rarity to seeing a big sporting event or concert. I'm willing to pay $200 for a decent seat if I go to WrestleMania. I'm sure as hell not paying $75 to go see a movie no matter what seat I'm in.
2. Tickets to these events can get lower over time to fill in the space. Are you going to lower the ticket cost when the auditorium isn't filling up and it is getting close to show time? I doubt it.
3. Aren't we going through something right now with Ticketmaster where we're all more than fed up with their crap?
   

Even if we ignore the idea that they (and any company in their shoes) would NEVER, EVER, EVER just flat out admit something as transparent as "We refuse to lower our ticket prices and the price of our concessions because we are too afraid that that will result in us having to make money based on quality and a longer time frame of proven consistency and value", it would be so refreshing to not hear such utter bullshit like "we're doing this for your benefit" wrapped in language about how they are "catering to a better experience for our beloved patrons" or whatever, and for them to just say what is the truth here: "In an effort to increase profits, we are up-charging our most loyal customers for our best seats."

Continue to keep making the same mistakes that everyone else is making, and when you run into the same problems, you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves.

This world seems like it is refusing to conduct itself with basic common sense anymore, all because everyone is so greedy that they think they're entitled to squeeze out more than their fair share of the average person who has less and less to give.

And before you say "Well, if you don't like it, you don't have to go" as if that's somehow an astute argument, don't you realize that's exactly what will happen?

I guarantee this is not going to result in higher profits, because it will mean less people will go to the movies, instead, and AMC will not go back on its pricing, either. They'll just try to keep moving the benchmark and hoping that people will get used to the prices so in another year, $20 a ticket is the cheapest option because it is now $40.

And you have the gall to say you make movies better.

By no means was That '70s Show my absolute favorite program growing up, but it was still part of that pantheon of staple things I had watched.

In an era where there wasn't a near-infinite amount of options available if you wanted to watch TV (ie, no YouTube, on demand, Netflix, etc), you grew to just start liking shows after watching them enough times. I've seen the majority of Frasier, Everybody Loves Raymond, King of Queens, and so many other shows like this just because they happened to be on around the time a rerun of The Simpsons was about to air or something along those lines.

This is a long-winded way of saying that outside of some parts of the final season—since it just wasn't the same—I had watched nearly all 200 episodes of That '70s Show and grew up with the characters, graduating high school just before its final season, of which I remember watching the finale and liking that it ended with the countdown to the new year into 1980.

Naturally, when That '90s Show was announced, I was curious. Revisiting nostalgia can sometimes be amazing. Other times, it can fail miserably. I've never felt the need to watch Fuller House, but I'm excited to see the revival of Clone High, for instance.

After binging the 10 episodes of That '90s Show, I figured I'd give my quick rundown of thoughts, mostly in pro/con form. You'll have plenty people super obsessed with That '70s Show that will either love or hate this on principle alone, but I'm one of those middle of the road types, which you might find a refreshing change of pace for this type of review.

Without further ado, let's start breaking down what worked for me and what fell short of the mark.

Pro: The General Premise

This is simple and rather perfect. I feel like they sat down, hashed out a few conversations at a conference table, and settled on the easiest, yet most effective foundation that just flat out works.

The old cast probably wouldn't have been all that interested in being the absolute focal points of the show, would be more expensive, and you're missing Hyde. Plus, That '70s Show was about teenagers, so if this was all about adults, it wouldn't have the same vibe.

But if it had been a scenario where Eric and Donna stayed living in Red and Kitty's house, or had moved next door, or anything along those lines, how do you start the show? Their daughter would have grown up with all her friends and the audience would have been plopped into it just skipping 15 years while being asked to "just go with it and love these new characters and don't pay attention to why we're ignoring their parents that you really want to see."

It wouldn't have worked.

But framing this as a summer break for Eric and Donna's daughter, wherein she can stay with her grandparents at the base home of the series, meet a colorful cast of new friends, go on a personal journey of growth and have some antics along the way is exactly the right formula.

Kudos to them for figuring that out and not trying to force anything else. It very much gave me the exact same vibe of the original, with a logical extension follow-up, rather than trying to reboot it entirely or be the show in name only.

Con: The Laugh Track

Unfortunately, one thing that hasn't aged well compared to 1998-2006 is the laugh track.

Generally speaking, I can't stand this anymore. I can only tolerate it when it comes to Seinfeld reruns.

Every show that I rewatch from back in the day—even a show I loved, like How I Met Your Mother—just doesn't feel right with the laugh track. It has become more obnoxious than anything else.

The Big Bang Theory is partially responsible for this (and before you say it, I've watched every episode of that show, so I'm not "just a hater", even if I grew to dislike how Flanderized the show became). Also to blame are the growing number of shows that don't use a laugh track. Even The Simpsons and Scrubs from back in the 90s didn't, but you can also throw in It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Modern Family, The Office, Brooklyn Nine-Nine and other comedies that work better without it.

To be perfectly honest, there wasn't a single joke over these 10 episodes that made me laugh out loud. Part of that is the writing itself, with that old school "oh brother" or "you couldn't have told me that sooner!? womp womp" style behind it that doesn't do it for me anymore, and part of it was the canned laughter.

Of course, if this was abandoned, it wouldn't have felt like the same show, so this is a con in a general sense and not something to ding this show itself on. But if this weren't a relic return show and was just something brand new, I wouldn't have bothered with the second episode.

Pro: Leia Forman

Naming Eric and Donna's daughter Leia is perfect. Having her be awkward like Eric, but not just a full-blown Eric clone, was the right way to go, too.

Callie Haverda didn't quite give me "She looks like she'd be the daughter of Erica and Donna" vibes as far as casting goes, but Eric never looked like the son of Red and Kitty, did he? Shut up. It's a sitcom. Just go with it.

Transitioning from a male protagonist to a female lead doesn't matter. The show retains its spirit without becoming about how "it's a GIRL now", which is often incredibly frustrating to watch. Instead of making a statement about it for the sake of it, the writers do what should be done, in that they just treat it like it is natural, so it feels natural. Major kudos for not falling into that trap.

As mentioned with the general premise, having Leia be a fish out of water (sort of) to act as the audience surrogate while introducing these new characters, where she's familiar with the old characters just like the viewers are, worked super well, and not making her some total brat or a buzzkill went a long way in making her likable.

Con: Ozzie

Not likable, though—at least, not for my tastes—was the character of Ozzie.

I get it. He's the Fez of the group. Fez was the quirky and effeminate one with the sass who stood out as not fitting in with the regular kids of Wisconsin, and they felt they needed a similar archetype character, so they came up with Ozzie.

But holy hell, this character was written to just be "the sass machine" 24/7. Every single line he says has no value to it because they are nothing but punchlines. But they aren't even good ones. They're just bitchy "I wouldn't do that if I were you" and "Sorry. I wasn't listening. I have my own problems to deal with" type tropes.

I knew every time the camera focused on him exactly what he would say and I just grew to roll my eyes.

The only good moment he has was when he comes out to Kitty, but that moment is only made good in her response of treating it like it is no big deal and just accepting him for who he is. So really, it is KITTY who makes that scene worthwhile, rather than Ozzie.

If the show comes back for another season, I'd be more than fine with them shipping him off on a bus and replacing him with someone else. He was easily my least favorite of the cast and needs to be toned down considerably and given some actual depth and better jokes other than being cheeky and impertinent.

Pro: Jay Kelso

Who I did really like, though, was Jay Kelso. Pretty much in every possible facet.

Michael and Jackie getting together made more sense to me than the Jackie and Fez thing. And for their son to be just like his father is great. You get to keep the Kelso character alive, basically, but apply it to another generation.

Great casting. I fully buy that Mace Coronel looks like a mix between Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis. He also does a great job being a little dim, but not quite as dumb as Kelso, since he does have half of Jackie's genes, too.

The "Buuuuuuuuuuuuuurn" was a good callback. Definitely a highlight.

I really like how they went with the Kelso/Forman romance, rather than to just frame them as friends. Personally, I'm one of those people who thinks Dick Grayson and Barbara Gordon should end up together, I think Sam and Izzy are definitely destined to be a thing for the future of Scrubs, and so on. When you've got the ability to take those characters and merge those families together, it's going to likely be a positive for me, so bonus points there.

Mixed Bag: Gwen, Nikki and Nate

Honestly, when it comes to the other three, I could take or leave them. They were fine, with some good and bad moments each.

Gwen works well as the best friend coaxing something out of Leia, but I'll admit that she often felt like she was there just for that reason. I couldn't tell you what her character actually is beyond "Leia's friend who seems kind of cool, but nobody actually gets her" because that's all they've told us and shown us.

Nikki has more depth to her. She's the smart one of the group and has the right level of sass to her. I like her the best of this trio, but I felt like she was just getting started right when the show ended its season.

Nate needs to find himself. Is he the biggest dope of the group, rendering one of Kelso's traits rather moot? Is he the sentimental one like they suggest at the end? (By the way, I didn't like the whole Leia/Nate thing. That felt forced.) Is he a football player or a lazy schlub? Some retooling could go a long way.

Pro: Red and Kitty Forman

These two were exactly as they were in the original show and haven't skipped a beat. They were absolutely perfect all across the board.

There isn't much more to say than that. 10/10

Mixed Bag: Sherri Runck

The show "needed a Bob" in a sense, so they have Sherri. She fills the void of the annoying neighbor rather well.

At no point did I ever get the sense that she was the mother of Gwen and Nate in any fashion, though. I guess if they had had 22 episodes like network television normally has, they would have explored that further and it would have potentially come across better. But as it is, if you told me she was flat out just a neighbor unrelated to anyone else, I'd have bought it.

I don't know why, but she was the character more than any that I looked at and thought to myself "I don't get a 90s vibe from her" even though I didn't get that with essentially ANYONE on the show, if I'm being honest. My brain must have just thought she needed to be more 90s in some way.

Pro: Pacing

This was a quick breeze of a watch. I had it on while I was working on other things that didn't fully require my attention, and it was easy to just keep it running. Before I knew it, another episode was starting. It didn't seem like it was dragging or rushing.

Pro: Cameos

The best part of the show was the first episode. Seeing Topher Grace and Laura Prepon back as Eric and Donna, interacting with Kurtwood Smith's Red and Debra Jo Rupp's Kitty is what sells the show.

I'm glad they were able to get Donna back in a few more scenes. I wish the same could have happened with Eric.

Tommy Chong coming back as Leo? Great.

Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis nailed their return as Kelso and Jackie. Awesome. Definitely one of the top 3 highlights of the season.

Don Stark's return as Bob Pinciotti was great to see, too. I'm really glad they were able to put that character back in there.

Even just seeing the familiar sets was a nice flashback that I really appreciated.

I will say, though, that since I'm not a total nut about the show, I didn't remember Jim Rash was even on it, let alone this Fenton character. That didn't do anything for me.

I'm on the fence about Fez. Having Wilmer Valderrama back was something that they needed to do, as it would have been weird not to see Fez in any fashion. But while the character was nailed in many ways, I found myself wondering if I had ever found Fez funny. I don't know if I would care to revisit the original series, but I'm starting to think that maybe if I watched it now, I would actually not like Fez, whereas I remember him being an enjoyable character before.

Con: No Steven Hyde

Who I did like even more than Fez back then was Hyde, and it is a shame that he couldn't make a return in some fashion.

Now, before you lynch me, I know why this is the case. Danny Masterson's assault history—true or not—makes it difficult for Netflix and other parties to want to just insert him in there and deal with the potential backlash.

Nothing outright says that isn't a possibility for the future. It isn't as though they said "Boy, it sure is a shame Hyde is dead and we'll never see him" or anything. In an ideal world, there wouldn't be any issues standing in the way of this (for multiple reasons, not the least of which being those things he's accused of doing just wouldn't be a reality). I would have liked to learn what he's been up to.

Is he in prison? Did he die from some overdose? Is he still working with Leo? I'm curious.

He's the only character that felt missing because he was one of the core cast. Not having a cameo or reference about Randy Pearson or even Eric's sister or anything along those lines can be ignored, but I'll admit that no mention of Hyde whatsoever felt like a bit of a void.

General Verdict

All in all, this was a success. It is a short 10 episode semi-reboot follow-up that keeps the spirit of the original going, doesn't spit in its face by any means, tries to deviate a little here and there but keeps its foundation.

If you're a fan of That '70s Show, you should certainly check this out. You won't be disappointed.

What did you think of That '90s Show?
Drop your thoughts in the comments below!

I've been waiting to write up a review of Pokemon Violet until after I had reached a point where I felt like I had the full game behind me, so I could properly evaluate it.

You don't want to read an intro for this—especially after seeing how long this post goes on for.

So without further ado, here are my pros and cons of Pokemon Violet and some comparisons to Legends: Arceus.

What did I like? What did I hate? What can be improved on and what is the best it has ever been?

Let's dive into it! 

MAJOR Pro: Free Roam

We can explore!!!!!! Finally, they gave us a game that can be almost wholly played in whatever fashion we want to.

Naturally, there are some blocks in the way. You obviously can't face the Elite 4 without beating all the gyms and such. Some obstacles are built-in with the travel itself, wherein you can't really get to a location that requires you to swim or climb until you've eaten the Titan Pokemon that can give you access to that power. But those are to be expected, and they're a perfectly acceptable countermeasure put in place to make sure players don't progress too far too fast.

But by and large, you can go where you want—particularly if you abuse the glitches that will place you in another spot—and you can choose the order of missions in whatever way you want.

Naturally, I found myself exploring like crazy and not bothering to do anything, so within no time, I had my level 15-20 team going up against level 50 Pokemon out of my league. It was difficult, which made it interesting.

Then, since my team was leveling up fast, I was wiping the floor with the competition, and it became easier to do other challenges that I was apparently supposed to do first. Whoops!

For anyone's curiosity, this is the order of the main challenges that I ended up doing:

1. Cortondo Gym - Bug
2. Quaking Earth Titan
3. Team Star Dark Crew
4. Artazon Gym - Grass
5. Cascarrafa Gym - Water
6. Stony Cliff Titan
7. Medali Gym - Normal
8. Open Sky Titan
9. False Dragon Titan 
10. Team Star Fairy Crew
11. Glaseado Gym - Ice
12. Montenevera Gym - Ghost
13. Lurking Steel Titan
14. Levincia Gym - Electric
15. Alfornada Gym - Psychic
16. Team Star Fighting Crew
17. Team Star Poison Crew
18. Team Star Fire Crew
19. History Class (for the location markers of the shrines)
20. Collecting the Remaining Stakes and Catching the 4 Legendaries
21. Academy Ace Tournament
22. Getting my Backup Miraidon
23. Unlocking 6-Star Raids

None of them were difficult until I got to the 6-star raids. Those have been hard. The rest were all extremely easy, as I had a level 40 Flamigo by the time I did the second thing on this list, and used that to wreck nearly every type of challenge out there. Who knew that dumb flamingo would be my ace?

Con: A Lack of Level Scaling

That first part of the game, where I was exploring into different areas that had massively higher level Pokemon than what I was equipped for, was way more interesting than the opposite. Once I was in my 40s for my team, and I had to backtrack to Titans and gyms and such that were a much lower level, it was too easy.

Ideally, there should be some sort of level-scaling for the challenges.

The wild Pokemon would be too difficult to implement this, but why not have the gym leaders all have different teams based on how many badges you've already collected? And the same for the Team Star members and the level that the Titan Pokemon are?

MAJOR Pro: A Specialist of Every Type

Since the very first generation, I've wondered why there wasn't a gym leader of every type. It just made sense to me that you'd have to prove you're a master of all the types to be eligible for the Elite 4 challenge, rather than 8 random types with the rest just not having any representation.

This time around, we finally got an equivalent to this by having the Team Star battles cover the rest of the types that weren't covered in the gyms.

It's about time!

Con: More Character Customization

I really can't change my character's outfit beyond just some dumb hats and such? Let me deck myself out with a full-on white suit like I'm The Man with the Golden Gun, like I was able to do in Pokemon Legends: Arceus.

There aren't even a whole lot of hair options.

For that matter, I'd like more variety in trainers. Same hiker woman all the time if they aren't just another student. And why are there elderly students and such?

Pro: What's in the Box?

Being able to click on Boxes in the menu and switch Pokemon was the easiest it has ever been. This improvement was so much more functional and a quality of life upgrade that it beats every other game before it, including Legends: Arceus, wherein you needed to go back to the tent base and talk to someone to have access to your boxes—or go to the specific person in the village for that.

Huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge fan of just having this available at my beck and call.

Con: Buying Food

Up until the point that I started doing the 6-star tera raids and finishing out my Pokedex wherein I needed to get eggs, the entire picnic mechanic was a complete waste for me.

I didn't want to spend the time to set it up at a spot that it let me, I didn't see any real benefit to doing much of the stuff you can do in the picnic, and the worst part of it all was that I hated the process of these power-ups.

First and foremost, why are there like 6 shops per location with all different types of combinations, and the only way for me to know what I'm going to get is to visit EACH ONE OF THEM and compare EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM?

If I wanted something with Egg Power, Water Encounter and Dragon Catch, for instance, I have no idea where I can find that, or if I can find it. I'd have to go consult an online guide, which you shouldn't have to do.

I don't like having to make the sandwiches and buy separate ingredients. It just isn't for me. Some people will play entire games like that. My wife loves Cooking Mama, for instance. But I want to play Pokemon, not do more work than I'm even willing to put into my own lunch in real life.

Why is there no way of knowing what current power-up you have, and no measure if knowing when the time is up?

I do like how much easier it is to get 10+ eggs when you do that power up and just set up a picnic, but this whole process could have been made a lot better than what it was, too.

Mixed Bag: The Story

I like that the school is used as a framework for everything. That works well for a lot of plot devices.

Team Star is particularly lame, though. I wanted to skip past almost all the dialogue in this as it was, but the whole story revolving around the losers being picked on and creating their own gang and all these cringy lines were unbearable.

Whatever happened to rivals in these games being jerks who you wanted to beat, and not just your brand new friends and people who spend most of their story apologizing?

Arven was cringy, too. Let's just say every bit of dialogue was cringy and write that off. But at least his reasoning for looking for the herbs was decent.

The time travel stuff is hit and miss. The game doesn't do enough to make me feel like I'm playing something in the future.

Con: Paradox Pokemon

Regional variants are better, particularly since they have actual names. All this "Iron ____" stuff is awful, and I don't like how they aren't even directly evolutions of Pokemon they clearly are. It comes off more like a Mega Evolution than an entirely separate thing, and I don't think any of the designs are good enough to justify it.

Some are decent looking, like Iron Moth and Iron Thorns. But why couldn't Great Tusk and/or Iron Treads just be a third evolution to Donphan?

Con: Terastal Phenomenon / Terastallized Pokemon

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't like these one-shot gimmicks they've been doing in this series.

Mega Evolution is dumb, overall. Those should be third evolution stages, regional variants, or not exist at all, and it is still the best of the bunch.

Z-Moves are ridiculous. Dynamax and Gigantamax is super lame.

The whole tera type thing isn't doing it for me. I NEVER use it in battle, and I hate when I come across something in the wild and I don't know what type it is, or how much longer it takes to beat it just because you need to go through that stall period where it doesn't fully take it down in one shot.

This gimmick isn't going to continue going forward, for sure, and that makes it even more annoying, knowing that it won't even stick around and it'll just be replaced by something else the next generation.

Also, your symbols suck. Why does Ground look almost exactly the same as Poison? And why is Psychic an eyeball for all these generations and still the thing above a Pokemon's head, but the type symbol used for that is closer to a mix of Normal and Fairy, while Dark is an eye, instead of the moon thing? Dumb.

Instead of wasting time trying to come up with a similar, but slightly different gimmick for each generation, why not focus your efforts on fixing the things that are problematic with each game, like the graphics and the lack of the full National Dex?

Con: Still No More Eeveelutions?

C'mooooon. You've had 1000 Pokemon, and you keep making some of the same stupid things like these generic birds and fish. Make an Eevee evolution of every type. Even if you introduce ONE of them per game, that would be something.

Guaranteed, you're sitting on a lot of money with this, too. People love these Eevee types.

Mixed Bag: Treasures of Ruin

Even though collecting them was hard because of the map, I liked the stakes being how you unlocked the 4 shrines for the legendaries.

I just wish the legendary Pokemon themselves were anything noteworthy.

Wo-Chien, Chien-Pao, Ting-Lu and Chi-Yu are not only all names that I'm never going to remember because they don't register to me as any recognizable words (ie, Squirtle = squirt turtle), they don't even really look like Pokemon to me. Chien-Pao, maybe. But even that's a bit of a stretch. They all seem like they'd belong better to another series.

I like legendaries that are more akin to Mewtwo/legendary birds, Groudon/Kyogre/Rayquaza, etc, and less of the Reshiram/Zekrom, Glastrier/Spectrier, Dialga/Palkia types.

Pro: Trainers Don't Automatically Battle You

I like that you have to engage with the trainers to battle them, rather than being forced to try to avoid their faces.

Con: Which Trainers Did I Fight??

MAJOR Con: Travel Mechanics and Map

One of my absolute biggest complaints about this game is how TERRIBLE the map is and the whole gameplay of maneuvering around the region as a whole.

I really like how you've got the same Pokemon to ride and do all the HM stuff. That's a huge bonus, even more so than needing to switch between Wyrdeer and Basclegion. But the climbing system is glitchy and I hate how the gliding is nowhere near as easy, fun or fast as flying with Braviary in Legends: Arceus.

Even more of a problem, though, is how the map functions.

You zoom out, look at an area, hover over it, zoom in, and it doesn't zoom into that area???? How counter-intuitive is that?

The waypoints system was INFINITELY better in Legends: Arceus, wherein you could place some markers at any random location and identify that there was a purpose behind it. I used it to map Alpha Pokemon or noteworthy spots with items, or areas I wanted to explore later.

Pro: Auto Battle

This was a fun little addition to the system. I liked being able to gather items quicker than individual battles, and it could help sometimes with gaining XP, too.

It's a shame they go so quickly back into their ball when you walk at even a moderate pace, though.

I also wish you could send out more than one Pokemon in the overworld like you can in the Team Star stuff, and that it wasn't so damn glitchy in those Team Star missions.

Speaking of which...

Con: The Ridiculous Lag

Con: Stop Bumping Into Me!!!!

I hate it when Pokemon pop up and keep starting battles. Let me save the game or MOVE somewhere, bro. You're spawning out of nowhere.

Why is there no repel?

MAJOR Con: Lock-on Target System to Aim for a Specific Pokemon is Wack

Legends: Arceus has such a better system for catching Pokemon. Not only is it more fun to just throw the ball yourself and not have to engage in a battle, but that you can choose to battle if you WANT to, the actual aiming is infinitely better.

How is the lock-on mechanic in this game so fundamentally flawed that it might as well not even exist?

Con: The Way the Pokemon Appear in the Wild

Everything is too goddamn small. It makes it impossible to even see some of the Pokemon, not only to avoid running into them, but also to TRY to find them. Sinistea, for instance is so tiny that you're better off farming chips by just sending your Pokemon out in auto battles and hoping for the best.

Also, it's impossible to spot a shiny unless it is super blatantly obvious. I've only come across one that I'm aware of, but I have no idea if I've passed by shinies that are too similar in color or anything.

That's if they even pop up at all in general. Most of the time, I check the map, see that there are supposed to be a few things around, and nothing at all is showing up unless I look in the opposite direction and turn back around, or run in circles.

Con: TM Selection

Most of the TMs are trash, like the terrain ones. It's almost all setup moves and not enough powerful damaging attacks.

I'd get excited to see a TM in the wild, only to find that it's yet another Agility, Fling, Substitute, Swift, Encore, etc. Where was Thunder Fang when I needed it, or how I didn't have a single decent Water move for like half the game?

Con: Classes

Nope. These are dumb and take forever. Even the fact that you have to keep loading the front entrance and going through all those menus is too long of a process. Just ask me all the questions and let me take the finals without having to begin and end classes and such.

Mixed Bag: Gimmighoul

I expected something cooler for the 1000th Pokemon. Having it be that you have to collect 1000 coins just gives me vibes that Pokemon is more drawing attention to how much money they make on this franchise than trying to celebrate it being a special milestone.

Ideally, I think it would have been cool to see a Kanto variant of sorts in this spot. Maybe since there's a Pikachu Clone in every game, this could have been a legendary version of that? Or maybe just something ultimately cooler that doesn't have to tie back to Generation 1?

Gholdengo looks weird. It's like a Kraft mac and cheese noodle mixed with Silver Surfer.

Other Miscellaneous Notes

• I've used more Repeat Balls and Quick Balls in this than any other game or any other ball.
  
• Is Larry an Elite 4 member just because you wanted to reference the abundance of Normal/Flying Pokemon, or because you couldn't think of another character? I'm assuming the former.
• I'm still curious why Scarlet has oranges for its logo. Shouldn't that be Pokemon Orange, then?
• That first lighthouse is a lifesaver for hatching eggs.
• I like the whole idea of crafting more TMs, but for simplicity's sake, I liked it better when you could just use them infinitely.
  

My Elite 4 Pokemon

My starter was Fuecoco, so Skeledirge was on my team from the start.

Flamigo got on my team super early, and I said to my wife "Look at this dumb flamingo. What a lame design and name. They really couldn't be bothered to think of anything better than a generic flamingo and the name is just taking the N out? Stupid." and then, as a joke, I put it on my team. But before I knew it, it was WRECKING things, and it ended up being the one I used the most during this playthrough.

I had never used a Skiddo before in a playthrough, so once I caught one of those cute little guys, it became a fixture of my team from before the first gym. Gogoat was an ace in the Elite 4.

Bellibolt, Clodsire and Veluza rounded out the team. Those 3 spots were revolving, for the most part. Tinkatink lasted a while on my team before I replaced Tinkaton with Bellibolt. Garchomp was always kept on standby, as was Garganacl. I had used a Pawmi for a while at the start, but it quickly got outclassed.

Obviously, there were some others I used along the way just to try them out, like Smoliv, Tarountula, Wiglett, Corviknight, and even a Hoppip was one of my mains at the start until I had gotten Skiddo.

But ultimately, the Elite 4 were taken down by Skeledirge, Flamigo, Gogoat, Bellibolt, Clodsire and Veluza.

Thoughts on All the New Pokemon in Generation IX

• Sprigatito / Floragato / Meowscarada = I didn't pick you for a reason. Bland. Generic. Not interesting in the slightest.
• Fuecoco / Crocalor / Skeledirge = I love the dopey gator. Crocalor is ugly as hell, though. Skeledirge is cool, but I could do without all the singing.
• Quaxly / Quaxwell / Quaquaval = Dumb.
• Lechonk / Oinkologne = Perfectly fine generic early mammal.
• Tarountula / Spidops = Meh. It's okay.
• Nymble / Lokix = Nymble is annoying. It keeps bumping into me. Lokix is fine. It's so far the only shiny I have. I keep thinking its a Steel or Fighting type, though.
• Pawmi / Pawmo / Pawmot = Cute. Super tiny. But Pawmo and Pawmot are lazy designs.
• Tandemaus / Maushold = Adorable. What a weird concept.
• Fidough / Dachsbun = There are too many dogs in this generation and this one doesn't stand out.
• Smoliv / Dolliv / Arboliva = Smoliv is the best of these three, for sure.
• Squawkabilly = Lame. We have enough Normal/Flying generic birds. Chatot would've been fine in this place and you could have designed something new.
  
• Nacli / Naclstack / Garganacl = Nacli is adorable. The other two are okay. Pure Rock type is weak, though, so it isn't very useful like if it were Ground.
  
• Charcadet / Armarouge / Ceruledge = Cool. A little too overdesigned, but I like them in general.
  
• Tadbulb / Bellibolt = Tadbulb is goddamn amazing of a name and adorable. Bellibolt is a chunky boy and I love it.
• Wattrel / Kilowattrel = Pretty decent. A little bland looking, but I dig it.
• Maschiff / Mabosstiff = Too many dogs. This isn't special.
• Shroodle / Grafaiai = Neat, but I'll never use it.
• Bramblin / Brambleghast = Very cool. I love that they did a tumbleweed and made it a Grass/Ghost. That's perfect.
• Toedscool / Toedscruel = Super weird. This should be a regional variant and not an entirely different species.
  
• Klawf = It's okay.
• Capsakid / Scovillain = We finally got a pepper, but it had to be this ugly design?
• Rellor / Rabsca = Bug and Psychic? Not Bug and Ground? What's up with that shit...literally?
  
• Flittle / Espathra = Flittle is supposed to be a chick?? Whatever.
  
• Tinkatink / Tinkatuff / Tinkaton = Ehhhhh I could see a ton of people having this as their favorite Pokemon ever. I liked Tinkatink for a bit, but I moved on.
  
• Wiglettt / Wugtrio = Why is this not a regional Diglett?
  
• Finizen / Palafin = Finally a dolphin. Palafin is dumb.
  
• Varoom / Revavroom = Ehhhhhh I don't know.
  
• Cyclizar = I don't like that this isn't a pre-evolution to the legendaries in proper form. But it's kind of neat.
  
• Orthworm = Ugly and dumb. That face looks like it is a design from another game.
  
• Glimmet / Glimmora = What is this thing?
  
• Greavard / Houndstone = I've been wanting a Rock/Ghost tombstone Pokemon. Why is this not part Rock type? I like it a lot, though.
  
• Flamigo = Instead of the amigo route with Fighting/Flying, I would have gone with FLAMEigo and made this a Fire type. Horribly dumb generic design, but it has a special place in my heart now for being my top guy for this playthrough.
  
• Cetoddle / Cetitan = Ugly. They could have had better narwhal designs.
  
• Veluza = I like it, but I can't help but to think Water/Psychic doesn't fit it. It looks more Steel type. And it seems like it should be stronger than what I keep coming across.
  
• Dondozo = I kind of like this big dope.
  
• Tatsugiri = Cute. Stop offing yourself with memento.
  
• Annihilape = Bad ass!!! Taking the idea of Primeape getting so angry it dies off and turning it into a Fighting/Ghost type is awesome, and the name is so sweet.
  
• Clodsire = What a dopey looking good boy. I love it.
  
• Farigiraf = Every Pokemon should have its full three-stage evolution. Doing this with Girafarig isn't exactly the design I would have gone with, but I appreciate the name, at least.
  
• Dudunsparce = Screw you. This thing is dumb.
  
• Kingambit = Very cool looking.
  
• Great Tusk = Dumb name. Why isn't this a true evolution of Donphan? Decent design, albeit I'm still left wanting.
  
• Scream Tail = Dumb name. What's wrong with this Jigglypuff?
  
• Brute Bonnet = Dumb name. I don't even like Amoongus as is. Awful design.
  
• Flutter Mane = Dumb name. The design is barely even there, too. It just looks like Misdreavus.
  
• Slither Wing = Dumb name. Why is it part Fighting type?
  
• Sandy Shocks = Dumb name. Dumb design.
  
• Iron Treads = Dumb name. Again, why isn't this a true evolution of Donphan? And why is it not right next to Great Tusk in the dex? I like the design, though.
  
• Iron Bundle = Dumb name. Why is this not Steel type? Ice/Steel or Water/Steel? I love Delibird, but this shouldn't exist.
  
• Iron Hands = Dumb name. It's just a different colored Hariyama. Also, IRON hands. Fighting/Steel instead of Fighting/Electric. C'mon.
  
• Iron Jugulis = Dumb name. I love Hydreigon, but they didn't try with this design. It should have become more of a tank.
  
• Iron Moth = Dumb name. Cool design, though. Not sure why its Fire/Poison instead of Bug/Steel or Fire/Steel.
  
• Iron Thorns = Dumb name. Should just be a regional variant. Obviously, this should be Steel/Electric or Rock/Steel or something, not Rock/Electric.
  
• Frigibax / Arctibax / Baxcalibur = One of the lamer pseudo-legendaries. I'm not a fan of the design.
  
• Gimmighoul / Gholdengo = Interesting concept, but not what I would have gone with for #1000. As stated, Gholdengo looks like a noodle from Kraft macaroni and cheese.
  
• Wo-Chien / Chien-Pao / Ting-Lu / Chi-Yu = I'd be fine with these not even being in the game and just having the shrines be something else. I don't like any of the designs, names or anything.
  
• Roaring Moon = Dumb name.
• Iron Valiant = Dumb name.
  
• Koraidon = Cool.
• Miraidon = Very cool. I dig this a lot, I like the typing, and I chose to start with Violet primarily because of it.
  

What do you think are the best and worst parts of Pokemon Scarlet and Violet?Drop your thoughts in the comments below!

Mary Jane Watson is one of the most iconic love interests in the entire superhero genre. She's a core staple of the Spider-Man franchise—arguably the top female lead—and recognizable to even casual fans.

But despite being such an important, influential and noteworthy character, she's struggling to find her place in the modern day version of the Spider-Man mythos, to the point that I have to ask who is she anymore?

Who is Mary Jane Watson?? Isn't It Obvious??

At first glance, you might be asking yourself what I'm even asking. Clearly, she's "Peter Parker's girlfriend/wife" and that's her role in the story. Duh.

But the damsel in distress trope has been dying out over the years. Rightfully so, might I add. Fans demand more effort to be put into stories so characters—typically more so women—are not just trophies that have to be saved by the hero and do nothing but get captured, shriek for help and plant a kiss on our protagonist to thank him.

They need to be actual characters with definable traits to make them interesting, much in the same way that the best antagonists are more than just "the villain" of a story, but can be explained in more detail.

Norman Osborn is an emotionally neglectful, sometimes downright physically abusive when not absentee father to Peter Parker's best friend, Harry Osborn. In some ways, Norman is a father figure to Peter and a representation of what Peter could turn into if he allowed his intelligence to get the better of him and corrupt into arrogance. When Norman goes in over his head with pride and ego and obsession, it backfires on him, leading to his transformation into the insane Green Goblin.

That's character. He's not just some guy on a glider chucking bombs that Spider-Man needs to punch. Hence why no one's favorite villain in this series is Jack O'Lantern, who is effectively the same exact gimmick across the board. And this version of Norman has only had some tweaks here and there, but has remained largely the same character since the start.

So explain to me who Mary Jane Watson is these days.

Mary Jane Watson vs. Other Love Interests

Again, yes, she's Peter's love interest. But so are dozens of others. For a dork that gets picked on and has painfully bad relationships, Peter slays. He's tasted the full rainbow and has no shortage of notches on his belt.

Peter Parker's love interests list is so long that Ranker stops at a top 20, not including Indira Daimonji, Lian Tang, Sally Avril, etc.

Most of those are pretty pointless, if we're being honest. There isn't anything about Debra Whitman that stands out as special compared to Gwen Stacy that you couldn't just merge those two characters and be fine with it.

So perhaps an even better comparison than the villain equivalent with Norman Osborn is to judge Mary Jane Watson against another love interest in Felicia Hardy, aka Black Cat.

With Felicia, you're getting a vigilante. That offers Peter a reflection point where fans can look at her character in relation to Spider-Man and see why they are together as well as why they have issues. They have a commonality in their masked personas and adventures, but they differ greatly on their morality. She's often a criminal, whereas Peter is by the books good.

Who is Mary Jane in reflection to Peter?

Your answer can't be "the hot girl that Peter normally wouldn't be able to get" because that could apply to virtually any of them. Mary Jane is confident and sexy, but so is Felicia Hardy. Both are drawn with a big chest and perfect bodies and so on and so forth. They all are. But their attitudes are very much both the "spunky one" to counteract Peter, making that part redundant, along with how Mary Jane is "the cheerleader from school" at times, but so are many other characters like Liz Allan and Sally Avril.

To be fair, from someone's perspective who hasn't read all these comics, it isn't just Mary Jane who suffers from this copy/paste problem. Not only do we not need 15 different Green Goblin knockoffs, we also don't need Carlie Cooper as the love interest whose father is a cop when we have Gwen Stacy whose father is Captain George Stacy, for instance.

Back to Black Cat, take Catwoman into consideration. Selina Kyle's relationship with Bruce Wayne and the whole vigilante/Batman idea is the same situation, which makes a character like Vicki Vale stand out as an entirely different love interest for Bruce. Vale is a reporter who could expose Bruce's secret identity.

Hence why we have Betty Brant for Spider-Man. She's the Vicki Vale, in some ways. Not exactly, obviously, but there are some parallels. As well as the whole Gwen Stacy having a cop for a father idea.

So if she can't just be the hot girl or the sexy and confident knockout to prove he hit the jackpot when he could just as easily get with Felicia Hardy or many others...who is Mary Jane?

Mary Jane isn't the smart and nerdy girl who Peter sees himself in, like Indira, Debra, sometimes Gwen, etc. Does that make her the dumb one to offset how intelligent he is? Yikes!

If you're judging a book by its cover and saying "but she's the redhead", then that's sad—and even that isn't always true, sadly.

How the Superhero Genre Adapts Over Time

As these superhero stories last decades, aspects of their stories need to change as time goes on.

Sometimes, the entire character is given a full reboot to be something different, like how Jaime Reyes is a much more different Blue Beetle than Ted Kord. Other times, like the Dan Garrett transition to Ted Kord, or with all the Green Lanterns or most of the Flash characters, they have a new person behind the mask, but many of the core elements remain the same.

Superman used to not be able to fly, but that eventually became the most iconic part about him. Batman used to use guns until it was the central character trait that he not only didn't use them, but also didn't kill at all.

In the same way that you don't see Clark Kent change his clothes in a phone booth since they don't exist anymore, and Superman isn't "more powerful than a locomotive" now that trains aren't as prominent, Peter Parker has gone through similar changes.

Modern day Spider-Man doesn't function 100% the same as what it used to be, outside of the origin story of getting bitten by a spider that has something weird about it (frequently not radioactive anymore; sometimes the origin of the lab can be Oscorp or another place), failing to stop Uncle Ben's killer (sometimes after a wrestling match, sometimes other details), and taking on the motto that "with great power comes great responsibility."

But look at J. Jonah Jameson and how much he's changed since even the Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire movies!!

Technology has completely altered the way that character functions in just the span of 10 years, even, as no emphasis was put on this for the Andrew Garfield series, since many elements had already become outdated.

Nobody reads newspapers anymore, and Peter cannot be a photographer who sells pictures of himself to Jameson because everyone has cell phones and reads their news digitally. Hence why Jameson is now an Alex Jones type who is more likely to pop up on a YouTube channel ranting about Spider-Man—the fundamental aspect of his character that has maintained over time—than to be Peter's boss.

I think the franchise still hasn't quite settled on what Peter's alternative job is. They seem keen on making him a professor and/or scientist, but that doesn't work for the younger teenager. Sometimes, he could be a lab assistant, I guess, yet if he's doing that job, you'd wonder how they could maintain the money struggle aspect of the character that has been one of his major problems.

Going back to Mary Jane, she was brought onto the scene as a gag. Aunt May wanted to set him up with her, and he kept dodging that, until it turned out she was actually this smoking hot sassy girl. Jackpot indeed, especially if you found the goody two-shoes Gwen to be boring, right?

In the Maguire films, wherein Gwen isn't a factor until appearing pretty much in name only in the awful third film, Mary Jane is upgraded to the literal "girl next door" trope that Peter's been in love with since they were kids, but was always out of his reach, as she's the hot popular girl and he's the shy nerd.

That makes sense and is a massive step forward, but it has a limited shelf-life. That's why her character is only ever still an object of affection to be obtained. That carries over into the second film, because she has no character beyond that. If she's not "the one Peter is going after", who is she? The model who can't act? That's an unnecessary side plot we don't care about any more than if we found out Wonder Woman's love interest Steve Trevor has a fantasy football team.

Everything needs to be in service of the driving the main character's story along.

This is why Lois Lane is such an important part of the Superman story. She's feisty while Clark isn't. Clark is more of the book smart nerd who can be naive, while Lois struggles with spelling, but is incredibly street smart and intuitive. Lois is more of a cynic, while Clark is more hopeful. He's otherworldly and she grounds him. Plus, she's got the whole reporter/superhero dynamic, too, giving her two functions inside the story for both Clark and Kal-El.

Where Does That Leave Mary Jane Watson in the 2020s?

Lois Lane is a good way to transition to modern day Mary Jane, as it seems this is what their inspiration was for the most recent video game series and some of the Ultimate series.

MJ was positioned as the one who works for the Daily Bugle, not Peter. Now, she's an investigative journalist, who is filling the Lois role of looking into things behind the scenes to further the plot along.

Gone are the "super hot confident model/actress" traits, because those are surface-level and have nothing to do with being an investigative journalist reporter type.

Outside of not just being named Lois Lane, this version of MJ might as well be an entirely different character—not that we need any more, especially since this also could have more easily just been Betty Brant if that were the case.

They seem bent on the journalist character, as that's carried over even into the Ultimate Spider-Man show, where it seems (I haven't watched it all) that she's not even really a factor, just like how they avoided MJ in The Amazing Spider-Man in favor of Gwen (minus some deleted scene content), and it seems as though Spectacular Spider-Man just has her as another hot popular cheerleader side character and nothing more, correct?

But let's talk about the MCU version and how awful that character is.

First off, she's not even Mary Jane Watson. She's Michelle Jones, referred to at the end of the first film as MJ, and then once more retroactively given the surname Jones-Watson to be MJ-Watson.

Mary Jane is one of the most iconic redhead characters out there, alongside others like Black Widow, The Little Mermaid Ariel, Daphne Blake from Scooby-Doo, Poison Ivy, Jessica Rabbit and April O'Neil.

Naturally, they got rid of that, along with the name.

As far as her character is concerned, she's a cynical joyless pseudo-friend (basically acquaintance at best) in the background of Homecoming while Peter is interested in Liz Toomes (who is one of many "not really the character Liz Allan, but whatever, we messed up a bunch of these; just look at Betty and Flash and...)

At no point in the first film does Peter have any real flirtation with Michelle, who I've long maintained should have been Michele Gonzales instead, to keep that up.

Suddenly, in the second film, he's head over heels for her. Why? No reason. He just is. There isn't anything explaining what it is about her that he likes. He's just madly in love. Okay. Whatever.

That carries over into the third film and that's about it.

But for argument's sake, let's say the franchise wanted to take aspects of this version of the character and incorporate that into the overall Mary Jane Watson concept. That would mean she would be, at best, a very smart (Gwen/Debra/Indira/etc) classmate (too many to name) who has a darker personality  compared to Peter (Felicia) and....that's it.

"You're a deeply mistrusting person, and I respect that."

As far as a reinvention, this doesn't really check off many boxes necessary to stand the test of time.

So Who SHOULD Mary Jane Watson Be?

As far as I'm concerned, taking Superman as the template, we need to sort out Peter Parker's love life with the pros and cons—or, the reflections that are positive versus the reflections that are too negative for him to end up with that person.

Felicia Hardy has the darker reflection gimmick down. She's also more of the sex appeal and is the object of pure lust in many ways. She's the thrill and the vigilante with the passion and burns red hot, but the flame dies quickly. Take that "hot girl" angle away from Mary Jane Watson.

Betty Brant has the coworker at the Daily Bugle thing down. She's a receptionist, but making her a reporter isn't a stretch. There's your Vicki Vale and Lois Lane tropes. Take that away from Mary Jane.

Gwen is the "girl next door" in the sense of being the "good girl" heart rather than the literal next door neighbor, but might as well be if you're merging the characters together. She also happens to have a cop father, and can often be written as Peter's intellectual equal. Take those away from Mary Jane.

You're left with a few character tropes that can merge a lot of characters into just a few roles:

1. The hot popular girl who Peter fawns over, but she doesn't look at him that way because he's a shy nerd. = Liz Allan, Sally Avril, etc
   
2. The temptation vigilante bad girl that Peter can't help but to be into, but he knows it won't work out in the end = Felicia Hardy
3. The coworker, classmate, or roommate who is a byproduct of just being around them = Michele Gonzales, Betty Brant, many schoolmates and such
   
4. The good girl, girl-next-door who is emotionally supportive = Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane sometimes, etc
5. The intellectual equal = Gwen at times, Debra, Indira, Lian Tang, etc
6. The unfortunate daughter of a cop which offsets Peter as a vigilante = Gwen, Carlie (this trope would also apply if Jameson ever had a daughter Peter was involved in)
   

I feel like the only way to have your cake and eat it, too, with how this franchise is trying to make Mary Jane fill the Lois Lane role is to lean less into the investigative journalism side and make her the photographer who works at The Daily Bugle. That goes with the modeling and actress thing, too. But then, you almost have to make her someone who is chasing Spider-Man for clout, rather than someone Peter's lusting over.

Maybe that's the evolution of the character, making her less of Peter Parker's ultimate endgame girl he ends up with, and more of another failed romance like Felicia Hardy.

And that brings me to a revelation that I didn't have until recently. All these years, I've remained staunch that MJ is Peter's true love, but I'm realizing that's just a bias I have because I grew up with the animated series and the Maguire films.

In reality, I think I've come full circle to thinking Gwen Stacy is Peter's true love.

She just works better as a more fully-fleshed out character with more avenues, being the intellectual equal and supportive girl next door with a cop father which makes sense why she'd be more willing to put up with his heroism, because she understands what it's like, having had a father who fought crime.

Otherwise, what role does Mary Jane serve but to be the backup option after Gwen dies who is just another supportive girlfriend and physical object of his affection who can't contribute to the story without being a Lois Lane ripoff, in need of rescuing from peril, and/or just arguing with Peter to create unnecessary tension and proving they aren't actually a good couple?

Or, you can just judge a book by its cover and say Mary Jane Watson is the redhead who dates Spider-Man and this long-winded wall of text that I wrote up at 4am is just a fan geeking out too much over the specifics and I should go to bed, right?

Welcome to the annual New Year's edition of 6 Flicks Picks to ring in 2023!

I had fully intended to bring this segment back to a monthly edition in 2022, only to just do January and not pick it back up. Admittedly, part of that was just on my schedule making it too difficult, and on the film slate having some rather bland months.

While I won't make any promises that this will go back to that monthly format in 2023, I wanted to at least do the beginning of the year mass post, as that's frequently the most interesting anyway.

With that being said, the way this works is different from the monthly editions. Rather than being limited to just six for this list, I'm going to be breaking down my top six as well as some supplemental groups of six for different tier lists, in a sense, of how much I want to see those movies.

Still, the general question remains: If you could only watch six movies for the entire year, which ones would those be?

Obviously, not every film that will come out this year is currently announced, and I haven't seen trailers for the vast majority of them. That is part of the fun when you can look back and see which movies you enjoyed more and which ones were surprises.

Without further ado, let's take a look at what makes my cut for 2023!

6 FLICKS PICKS FOR 2023

As far as January 1st is concerned, here are my top 24 picks, as I couldn't get to 30 as I originally had planned.

Bottom Tier Honorable Mentions:

Low Tier Honorable Mentions:

24. The Little Mermaid — Realistically, I'm not going to watch this unless we end up doing a FanTracks.

23. John Wick: Chapter 4 — I still haven't watched any of these John Wick films, but I keep wanting to. I just haven't gotten around to it. Maybe by the time this comes out, I'll have watched them, enjoyed them, and will be looking forward to this.

22. Barbie — This has SO much potential to be horrendous...but it could also be kind of great?

21. 65 — Admittedly, I was a lot more interested in this movie when all I knew about it was that an astronaut was stranded in some fashion, rather than seeing that he's gone back in time and will fight dinosaurs. With that being said, it's about an astronaut fighting dinosaurs that had a good enough script (most likely) to attract Adam Driver. Who knows. This could be fun.

20. Missing — Run sucked hard. Searching was good. Give me more Searching.

Middle Tier Honorable Mentions:

18. Kraven the Hunter — This is the section we call "you've burned me too much in the past, but I'm going to see your shitty film because I'm a fan of the source material." There's no way in hell Sony pumped out a halfway decent movie with Kraven. It's not happening. But I'll sit through 2 hours of this crap nevertheless.

17. Transformers: Rise of the Beasts — See what I mean about this part of the list? The first Transformers movie was great. Everything else has been crap. This most likely will, too. But hey, it could look good on screen, at least.

16. Blue Beetle — DC got shattered and this film is just one of the leftover shards they forgot to pick up. I'm not expecting much, but I'm curious what they decided was a good enough breakdown for a Blue Beetle film.

15. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem — Animated? Let's see what the animation looks like. Let's hear what the voice acting is like. This could be great, or it could look and feel as weird as the last series I saw a clip of that made me not want to watch it.

14. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom — Aquaman isn't great as is. When you throw the Amber Heard stuff in there, along with all the stuff with DC falling apart, we're not in store for anything awesome. But it's still a DC film.

Top Tier Honorable Mentions:

12. Oppenheimer — This could be amazing like Memento or one of Christopher Nolan's boring projects that fall short for me like Dunkirk. Give me more Inception and less Tenet.

11. Knock at the Cabin — This seems interesting as hell based on that first teaser. M. Night hasn't been crapping out garbage, either.

10. Creed III — The Rocky franchise is one that mostly consistently delivers if you go into it expecting what you got from what came before it. I liked the last two Creed films. Sign me up.

9. Shazam! Fury of the Gods — Again, DC. Shazam isn't even that great, and Black Adam was horrendous. But...well, superhero. You've already got me.

8. The Marvels — Ugh. Captain Marvel is one of my least favorite MCU films, and I couldn't get past midway through the second episode of Ms. Marvel. But this is an MCU movie, so I'm going to watch it.

7. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny — I didn't hate Crystal Skull as much as everyone else. It wasn't as good as the first or third, but it was better than Temple of Doom in my mind. Blasphemy, I know. But let's see what this crew put together.

What Made the Final Cut:

6. Untitled Ghostbusters Afterlife Sequel — Get ready for this to be on the 2024 list, too, because there's no way this is going to actually come out in 2023 as expected. It will certainly be delayed. But I thought Afterlife was solid, and I'm a big fan of the first two movies. Of course you have my loyalty.

5. Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One — These movies keep getting better and better. By Rogue Nation, they sold me that I'm going to love the next installments, too. Opening night, for sure.

4. The Super Mario Bros. Movie — It can't be as bad as the live action movie, right? Some stuff so far has looked fantastic and some stuff has been a little wonky. But this isn't the type of movie I can just pass up seeing. It's Mario after all.

3. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse — The first one is SO good. There was no way this wasn't making the top 6. Give me everything Spider-Man, as it's my #2 favorite superhero character.

2. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania — Yesssssssssss.

1. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3  — This is probably going to be fantastic.

WHICH MOVIES ARE YOU INTERESTED IN CHECKING OUT?

TELL US IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!

Welcome to the sixth annual FANBOYS FILM AWARDS!

Based on the layout of last year's change to this segment, this will be acting more as a personal list of just the movies that I've seen this year, rather than something that attempts to focus specifically on the superhero film genre as originally conceived.

I invite everyone to join in on the fun by leaving their own lists and thoughts in the comments below to tell us what you watched this year!

FILMS THAT CAME OUT IN 2022 THAT I WATCHED:

The Adam Project
Amsterdam
The Bad Guys
Barbarian
The Batman
Batman and Superman: Battle of the Super Sons
Black Adam
Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
The Black Phone
Bodies Bodies Bodies
Bullet Train
Catwoman: Hunted
Choose or Die
Clerks III
DC League of Super-Pets
Death on the Nile
Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness
Don't Worry Darling
Elvis
Everything Everywhere All At Once
Fresh
Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery
Green Lantern: Beware My Power
Jackass Forever
Lamb
Lightyear
Men
The Menu
Morbius
Mortal Kombat Legends: Snow Blind
Nope
Pearl
Pinocchio
Prey
Prey for the Devil
Samaritan
Sonic the Hedgehog 2
Spiderhead
Thor: Love and Thunder
Top Gun: Maverick
Umma
The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent
Watcher
Weird: The Al Yankovic Story
The Whale

FILMS THAT CAME OUT BEFORE 2022 THAT I WATCHED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 2022:

After Yang
Awakenings
Encanto 
Interview with a Vampire 
Nightmare Alley
No Man of God
Ouija: Origin of Evil 
Peninsula 
The Babadook 
The Devil All the Time
The Guilty
The Innocents
The Karate Kid
The Karate Kid Part II
The Karate Kid Part III
The Man Who Knew Too Little
The Next Karate Kid
The Prince of Egypt
The Princess and the Frog 
The Wasteland 
Train to Busan
Vivarium

BEST / FAVORITE MOVIES OF THE YEAR

There are no S-tier movies from this year that I'd give a 9 or a 10 out of 10 rating to and instantly went on my list of "top favorite movies ever" or anything of that sort.

Probably my absolute top film from this year would be The Batman. That shouldn't be too surprising, considering that's my favorite character in the entire history of fiction for any type of media. But it was also just a rock solid movie.

Other A-tier type films (roughly an 8/10) from this year would be:

• Black Panther: Wakanda Forever
• Bullet Train
• Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness
• Everything Everywhere All At Once
• Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery
  

B-tier (roughly a 7/10) would be:

• Interview with a Vampire
• The Karate Kid 1-3 (Note: Pure enjoyment. Not the "quality" of the movies.)
  
• The Menu
• Nope
• Sonic the Hedgehog 2
• Top Gun: Maverick
  
• Weird: The Al Yankovic Story

C-tier (roughly a 6/10) would be:

• The Bad Guys
• Clerks III
  
• DC League of Super-Pets
• Peninsula
• Prey
• Thor: Love and Thunder
  
• Train to Busan
• The Whale
  

D-tier (roughly a 5/10 and the cutoff of what I mostly enjoyed) would be:

• After Yang
• The Adam Project
  
• Amsterdam
  
• Awakenings
• Barbarian
  
• The Black Phone
  
• Death on the Nile
  
• The Devil All the Time
• Encanto
• Jackass Forever
  
• Lightyear
• The Princess and the Frog
• Vivarium
  

Beyond that point, all the other movies listed above on my watch list would be E-tier or lower, and there isn't much of a reason to rank them, as they were all disappointing if not horrible.

WORST / LEAST FAVORITE MOVIES OF THE YEAR

• I watched a lot of horror movies that I never would have seen just because my wife is super into them. The vast majority of those movies were on my worst of the year, easily, like Choose or Die.
• Pinocchio was particularly bad. I was surprised at how bad it is.
• Samaritan was one of the most disappointing. It had a decent premise, but was SO poorly executed that I hated nearly every minute of it.
• Mortal Kombat Legends: Snow Blind and Catwoman: Hunted prove why these movies don't get theatrical releases. They're garbage. I didn't like Green Lantern: Beware My Power or Batman and Superman: Battle of the Super Sons either.
• Speaking of bad comic book films, Black Adam was the drizzling shits. They had all that time to make that movie and THAT is the best they could come up with?
• Morbius gives Black Adam a run for its money, though. Absolutely terrible across the board.
  
• Men might be the movie that pissed me off the most, though. The ending of that film completely ruined it for me and just got me annoyed that I had sat through what seemed like something that could have been interesting or had potential, only to devolved into that drivel.
  
• The Next Karate Kid is such a downgrade from the previous three films and the Cobra Kai television series that it might as well not exist.
  

BEST ACTOR

WINNER = Austin Butler (Elvis) or Brendan Fraser (The Whale)

EXPLANATION = As much as I couldn't care less about Elvis whatsoever, and I only watched this movie because a family member really wanted to see it, this portrayal felt like the real deal. But then on December 29th, I saw The Whale, and Brendan Fraser is giving me pause to not pick Austin Butler necessarily. So screw it. It's a tie.

HONORABLE MENTIONS = Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness), Daniel Radcliffe (Weird: The Al Yankovic Story), Ke Huy Quan (Everything Everywhere All At Once), Kenneth Branagh (Death on the Nile), Ralph Fiennes (The Menu), Tom Cruise (Top Gun: Maverick), Tom Hanks (Elvis)

BEST ACTRESS

WINNER = Michelle Yeoh (Everything Everywhere All At Once)

EXPLANATION = Multiple versions of the same character while doing all those stunts. Awesome.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

WINNER = Colin Farrell as Penguin in The Batman

EXPLANATION = When he was first announced, I couldn't picture him playing the part. Who would have known he'd dissolve himself so much into the part that I can't picture him playing it because it's so good that it doesn't seem like Colin Farrell?

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

WINNER = Angela Bassett as Queen Ramonda in Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

EXPLANATION = She killed it.

BEST STORY

This is an alternative to Best Adapted/Original Screenplay where the execution of the overall product might not be the equivalent of Best Picture, but the idea was there.

WINNER = Everything Everywhere All At Once

EXPLANATION = I try not to count films from before this year, otherwise I'd potentially give this to Interview with a Vampire. EEAAO was not what I was expecting, but in a good way. It felt very fresh.

MOST FAITHFUL ADAPTATION

Which movie felt like it was the most honorable to the source material it was trying to represent?

WINNER = Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

EXPLANATION = The Batman made some changes that I wasn't as big of a fan of (like Bruce's hairstyle) while Wakanda Forever was the best possible story they could have told given the circumstances and fits perfectly in the tone of the MCU as a follow-up to the first film, whereas something like Thor: Love and Thunder was too jokey at the expense of its own movie.

BEST VISUALS

This covers special effects, cinematography, production design and even editing.

WINNER = Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

EXPLANATION = If not for the sheer variety of it.

BEST ACTION SET PIECES

This honors the stunt work as well as the choreography and idea of an action sequence.

WINNER = Bullet Train or Everything Everywhere All At Once (tie)

EXPLANATION = Two completely different style movies. Bullet Train is more of "some dude's favorite movie" action. EEAAO is more ambitious to do something different and unique.

BEST CHARACTER DESIGN

This combines makeup, costumes and the CGI build of characters.

WINNER = Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness

EXPLANATION = Look at how many characters we got, and how many they did right. Quantity can take the edge in something like this.

BEST MUSIC

This category examines both the score and the soundtrack.

WINNER = Black Panther: Wakanda Forever

EXPLANATION = Ludwig Göransson wins for Con La Brisa alone. The Rihanna song is good, too, though.

TELL US YOUR LIST IN THE COMMENTS BELOW!